[Lenni]

 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong, if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to your scientific hypotheses there are really no audible differences between cables - they're all the same - cables play no part in sound quality.
 
what's the story?
what's the story 

correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
 


Quote:

Bad news, the sound of the power cord got involved and it sucked.  Now I have a two hundred dollar audiophile grade, ten foot power cord that's only good for providing current to the Christmas tree lights.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong, if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to your scientific hypotheses there are really no audible differences between cables - they're all the same - cables play no part in sound quality.
 
what's the story?
what's the story 

correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 

Placebo.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong, if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to your scientific hypotheses there are really no audible differences between cables - they're all the same - cables play no part in sound quality.
 
what's the story?
what's the story 

correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
correct me if I'm wrong - if one cable sucks  and the other is better (your words), I assume you hear differences between the cables.  according to many scientific hypotheses (gravity?!?) there are really no audible differences between cables;  cables make no diffirence.
what's the story 
 

 
You're making the assumption that an audible "difference" is a result of a physical difference in cables.
 
If you want to be scientific about this, there are two fundamental questions:
 
1.  Is there a physical difference in cables that leads to audible differences?
2.  Is the human listening to cables actually hearing a difference, or is the heard difference a result of placebo, expectation and belief?
 
Whenever you try to answer number one with testing, no audible difference turns up.
 
Whenever you try to answer number two, you repeatedly get results that show human bias.
 
Here's something to think about: even if a difference is eventually demonstrated scientifically, it must be incredibly small.  Almost insignificantly small.  Why?  Because careful testing of cables and humans has missed it so far.  If it was an obvious phenomenon, then people would pass blind tests without much trouble and endless handwringing over minute protocol differences.  Similarly, if the effect was easily found, it would show up as anomalies in tested results.  You'd get slightly off readings and ones that didn't fit with Ohm's law.  There might be a mysterious element, but still, it would affect known parameters.

 

[beeman458]

according to your scientific hypotheses there are really no audible differences between cables - they're all the same - cables play no part in sound quality.
 
My apologies for the confusion.  The disconnect I unintentionally created was, even though I don't debate the issue, I'm still a cable kinda guy.  Why don't I debate the issue?  Because there's no point in doing so.  All one does in debating issues of this kind, is open a can of worms that just sits, looks at you and quietly wiggles around.  This, no matter how emphatic the discussion.
 

 

[beeman458]

If it was an obvious phenomenon, then people would pass blind tests without much trouble and endless handwringing over minute protocol differences.
 
It's the parameters of the interpretation of the results that guarantees fail.  It's quite convenient that digital terms are used to define an analogue world.  Of course you're going have fail.
 
See, there's no point in a debate.  When the world's genius get their collective heads out of their taught world bias, then you can have a real conversation.  Until then, you might as well be talking to the Borg,  And as everybody who knows about the Borg, there's no point wasting your time expecting to have a rational conversation.
 
"You will be assimilated."
 
What kind of rational conversation can one expect to have when the above is the anti-cable crowd's refrain.  Or is their refrain more along the lines of:
 
"We're right, you're wrong.  Neenar, neenar, neenar."
 
Either which way, you won't have a rational conversation.
 
???

 

[beeman458]

Whenever you try to answer number two, you repeatedly get results that show human bias.
 
One problem with your above.......  In my case, the three dollar cable beat out the two hundred dollar cable.  Kinda puts a hole in the whole bias thingy as I'm now having to eat a bad purchase which cost me two hundred dollars.
 
Boo, Hoo, Hoo!

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Whenever you try to answer number two, you repeatedly get results that show human bias.
 
One problem with your above.......  In my case, the three dollar cable beat out the two hundred dollar cable.  Kinda puts a hole in the whole bias thingy as I'm now having to eat a bad purchase which cost me two hundred dollars.
 
Boo, Hoo, Hoo!

Not really. You're still biased since the cables sound the same but you don't think they do. You must not have been happy with your purchase after you made it. Your subconscious is trying to save you money in the future. You've got a pretty responsible one, you should be proud.
 
It was probably linked in this thread, but here's a list of biases. 

 

[beeman458]

Not really. You're still biased since the cables sound the same but you don't think they do.
 
Absolutely amazing how you'd know that.  A suggestion, look the word up so you're on to it's "real" meaning as in this case, you're using the word incorrectly.
 
FWIW, you won't draw me into a debate as I have no need to defend my position.  Making up rules so as to be sure and create self-serving "false" positives or negatives to push a personal agenda, is disingenuous at best and deceptively unethical at worse.
 
Wanna buy a two hundred dollar Christmas tree light extension cord?  You see, I won't sell the cord at a discount as I hate making bad deals and I'd rather keep the unused cord for eternity then sell it at a loss and have to admit that I made a bad deal in the process.  Irrespective of my personal business bias', the cord sucks when it comes to it's sonic signature and your comments to the contrary won't change reality.
 
You've got a pretty responsible one, you should be proud.
 
If you knew how willing I was to spend my money, you wouldn't write that.
 
(Whistling icon goes here.)
 
"...but here's a list..."
 
Now you want to discuss contemporary provincial fallacies of basic human psychology?
 
???
 
No matter how much some folks want it to be a digital world, until the end of time, it will stay an analogue Universe.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

No matter how much some folks want it to be a digital world, until the end of time, it will stay an analogue Universe.

Wrong
 
Also I don't see what the dichotomy between "true" and "not true" has to do with that.

 

[beeman458]

"Wrong"
 
And where did the content of your link say it was a digital Universe?
 
???
 
Also I don't see what the dichotomy between "true" and "not true" has to do with that.
 
I don't recall commenting on Quantum Mechanics but the rational is simple on my part as folks are skewing rules to suit personal bias' and in this case, they're trying to sum up their findings in a digital discourse when they're dealing with the vagaries of an analogue pursuit they disagree with the existence of.
 
The whole wire debate becomes invalidated when one tries to conveniently characterize results of a test as being nothing but a bunch of false positives based upon a self-serving digital canon when having trouble dealing with an analogue world.  It's called a power struggle.  You see, if someone wants to "think" that cables don't make a sonic difference in the production of sound waves, I'm good as nobody is going tell them they're foolish or call them names for not buying cables.  But don't expect me to accept false premises when in truth, it's about the emotional impact of the music, not what another thinks one should be hearing or doing with their money.  One really does need to explore why there's all this caring what others do with their money.
 
Do you see how when it's all said and done, there's no debate here?
 
???

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

"Wrong"
 
And where did your link say it was a digital Universe?
 
???

 
Right here
 
Quote:

By assuming that energy can only be absorbed or released in tiny, differential, discrete packets he called "quanta," Planck accounted for the fact that certain objects change colour when heated

 
All matter and energy exists as discrete amounts (ie digital), not infinite gradations (ie analog).  Therefore the universe is basically digital.  It may appear analog to blunt and imperfect senses, but deep down on the quantum level, we can see that it is not.
 
Even if you, for example, had a turntable which was able to measure infinite variation on a record (which is also impossible anyway) there is a minimum amount of electric charge it can send to the pre amp.  The charge of one electron.  It can't send 1/2 an electron or 1 1/2 electron, it can only send whole electrons.  That's how the universe is digital.

 

[beeman458]

By assuming that energy can only be absorbed or released in tiny, differential, discrete packets he called "quanta," Planck accounted for the fact that certain objects change colour when heated
 
I read that and it's not saying that Planck was stating it's a digital world.  Quanta could be bags of cement on a pallet in a hardware store or a bundle of lumber in a lumber yard.
 
It can't send 1/2 an electron or 1 1/2 electron, it can only send whole electrons.  That's how the universe is digital.
 
Sorry, that's not digital.  The above is why there's no point in debating the issue as you're trying to take an analogue experience and reduce it down to component parts.  That's neither digital nor the real universe as unassembled pieces do not make a car a car until assembled.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

 
You see, if someone wants to "think" that cables don't make a sonic difference in the production of sound waves, I'm good as nobody is going tell them they're foolish or call them names for not buying cables.  But don't expect me to accept false premises when in truth, it's about the emotional impact of the music, not what another thinks one should be hearing or doing with their money.  One really does need to explore why there's all this caring what others do with their money.

I will say they are foolish for spending money on power cables if I'm asked about it, but that's not what I'm here to do.  It's like trying to argue someone out of their religion.  I'm here to inform people who don't know if expensive cables will make a difference so they can make rational decision and save some money.  If expensive power cables give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, then go ahead and buy them.  I'm here to tell people they don't make any detectable difference so they don't make a $200 mistake.
 
As to why I care if other people waste their money?  Oh, I don't know, empathy maybe?

 

[beeman458]

It's like trying to argue someone out of their religion.
 
Now why would anybody want to do that?
 
???
 
As to why I care if other people waste their money?  Oh, I don't know, empathy maybe?
 
Well, that's very thoughtful of you.  But one thought, if wasting one's money, makes them happy, and you succeed in stopping them from wasting their money, haven't you now made them unhappy?  Why would you want to make people unhappy?
 

 

[maverickronin]

Maybe you don't quite understand what digital is.  Lets define it.
 
Quote:

• Having to do with digits (fingers or toes); performed with a finger.
• Property of representing values as discrete numbers rather than a continuous spectrum.
  1. digital computer, digital clock
• Of or relating to computers or the Computer Age.

 
Read #2.  This is contrasted with analog which is...
 
Quote:

analog 

• (Device or system) in which the value of a data item (such as time) is represented by a continuously variable physical quantity that can be measured (such as the shadow of a sundial)

 
My point is that to limited resolution of our senses the world appears to be analog, but if you zoom in to the fundamental structure of matter and energy you will find that it only ever exists in discrete quantities which is the definition of digital.